Spousal support; modification when person reaches retirement age. (SB540)

Introduced By

Sen. Emmett Hanger (R-Mount Solon) with support from co-patron Del. Chris Peace (R-Mechanicsville)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Modification of spousal support; retirement age. Provides that for the purposes of petitioning the court for a modification of spousal support, the payor spouse's reaching full retirement age pursuant to the federal Social Security Act shall be considered a material change in circumstances. The bill provides a list of factors that shall be considered by the court in considering modification based on the payor spouse's reaching full retirement age. A request for modification based on the payor spouse's retirement age is available to any person subject to a spousal support order regardless of the date of the suit for initial setting of support or the date of entry of any such order or decree. The bill provides that in the court's consideration of a petition for modification for any reason, it shall consider the assets or property interest of each of the parties from the date of the support order and up to the time of the hearing on modification or termination and any income generated from the asset or property interest. Amends § 20-107.1, § 20-109, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
01/09/2018Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/18 18101737D
01/09/2018Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/22/2018Reported from Courts of Justice (14-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/23/2018Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/24/2018Read second time and engrossed
01/25/2018Read third time and passed Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/29/2018Placed on Calendar
01/29/2018Read first time
01/29/2018Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/15/2018Assigned Courts sub: Subcommittee #2
02/19/2018Subcommittee recommends reporting (7-Y 1-N)
03/02/2018Reported from Courts of Justice (16-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/06/2018Read second time
03/07/2018Read third time
03/07/2018Passed House BLOCK VOTE (98-Y 0-N)
03/07/2018VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (98-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/09/2018Enrolled
03/09/2018Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB540ER)
03/09/2018Signed by Speaker
03/10/2018Signed by President
03/20/2018Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on March 20, 2018
03/20/2018G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, April 9, 2018
03/30/2018G Approved by Governor-Chapter 583 (effective 7/1/18)
03/30/2018G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0583)

Comments

Michael C. Lucas writes:

This bill is a good start for family reform,especially addressing issues concerning retiree's, but I find the entire code is too broadly interpreted allowing Courts to convene in such a way that undermines our family needs, and society as a whole.

I feel this Bill needs to consider not only Retirees as Senator Hanger has suggested, but it should also consider citizens living on fixed incomes as well as disability compensation. There are no accommodations or limitations in this bill specified for Disabled Citizens including Disabled Veterans who are living on fixed incomes wherein the State, Court, has no jurisdiction.

The current Virginia Code allows for a Courts discretion to assign any amount at its discretion, even allowing fraud by imputing a fraudulent income beyond a person’s means, in order to calculate, extort a person’s real income, thereby assigning any monetary award amount for Spousal/Child Support or lump sum, counsel fees, etc… without any provocation on the part or fault of a citizen. Imputation of income should only be applied as a punitive measure wherein a clearly defined voluntary fault has been established for voluntary non-compliance, or fraud by the payor to voluntarily reduce their real means of income. Disabled Citizens and/or Veterans living on fixed disability compensation as has often been erroneously considered or defined as income, should not be subject to rules of imputation, as neither clearly establishes a fixed income. Any calculation should accommodate for said fixed compensation as zero income.

There is an absolute dysfunction within our Courts, as adversarial entities Lawyers use Virginia Codes to abuse citizens, and disenfranchising them of their Constitutional Rights.

What if as in most cases, the respective degrees of fault for a marriage failing were mutually exacerbated by both parties? What if evidence identifies purposeful deceit and manipulation by either spouse? What if evidence identifies purposeful deceit and manipulation of an Attorney influencing either spouse? Why should the State be spending millions of dollars micromanaging dysfunctional marriages? Incarcerating citizens who would otherwise have no violations, other than being held for contempt egregious Court Orders, consuming them to death. When the State intervenes codifying Laws whereby Lawyers willfully profiteer that is a conflict of interest, and society suffers as a whole then the legislators are responsible and accountable allowing this, the latter’s actions are detrimental, enabling and reciprocating said dysfunction upon society, and the citizens in question. I believe the most efficient means to an amiable dissolution of marriage would be better for the Law to recuse any bias and simply divorce said couple, without prejudice, all assets jointly titled, accounts, vehicles, property, etc… should be divided equally. Without fault, without bias, 50/50. As a means of fairness, equally calculating maintenance support of both parties, should reflect the same equal division of consideration and expense. Both parties are equally entitled to their means to sustain themselves, separate and independently of each other. All sources of monetary support should be considered by full disclosure, including child support, legal settlements, educational living stipends, allowing a full comprehensive disclosure of available funds, for both parties in calculating any awards for Spousal and/or Child support, fully assuming the 50/50 rule period.

The latter sections C and D, leaves a citizen subject to perpetual suffering at the Courts discretion. The length of a marriage is dependent upon the condonation of both parties. A dissolution of marriage establishes that the marriage is no longer condoned and the marital obligations, have been dissolved with an end date, therefore all economic maintenance support should justifiably have an end date. The free will to dissolve the marital contract nullifies any further compact with the relationship. The State’s first and foremost responsibility is in establishing Laws that sustain an amiable society, a peaceful separation equally within the Law, and certainly in respect of Constitutional liberties.

By allowing the Courts to assign maintenance and support at its discretion, and reserving the right to decree support in the future. The State assumes a position of dominance, subjugating citizens to deprivation and involuntary servitude by legal coercion at the Courts discretion, and as the support petitioner pleases. This is clearly a violation of the 13th Amendment, in fact it violates the 14th amendment, depending on the circumstances applied by the Courts discretion and application of the Law. By perpetuating an economically bound relationship between irreconcilable parties this code enacts and condones a heinous egregious inhumane act, it is clearly cruel and unusual punishment to legally coerce people to suffer who are clearly already suffering by forcing them to incur expense more often than not beyond their means to comply, let alone sustain mental and physical suffering from the dissolution of marriage, because the State allows for the Judgement of legal consensus to dictate a citizens life at their discretion. The latter is the definition of subjugation, it is inhumane and leaves no path of least resistance for reconciliation or healing either party, in fact the legal coercion using the State code, exacerbates social suffering of all parties involved.

Again, this broad presumption of legal coercion sets a precedent of oppression, a Court should consider either party equally regarding the Law, within a 50/50 split of the assets titled between the two parties. Why should Spousal awards exceed more than four years, the latter being a period long enough to establish sustaining themselves, for education and vocational opportunities, for sustaining their own life, liberty and pursuits of happiness.

Michael C. Lucas writes:

§ 20-107.1. Court may decree as to maintenance and support of spouses.

C. The court, in its discretion, may decree that maintenance and support of a spouse be made in periodic payments for a defined duration, or in periodic payments for an undefined duration, or in a lump sum award, or in any combination thereof.

D. In addition to or in lieu of an award pursuant to subsection C, the court may reserve the right of a party to receive support in the future. In any case in which the right to support is so reserved, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the reservation will continue for a period equal to 50 percent of the length of time between the date of the marriage and the date of separation. Once granted, the duration of such a reservation shall not be subject to modification.

The latter sections C and D, leaves a citizen subject to perpetual suffering at the Courts discretion. The length of a marriage is dependent upon the condonation of both parties. A dissolution of marriage establishes that the marriage is no longer condoned and the marital obligations, have been dissolved with an end date, therefore all economic maintenance support should justifiably have an end date. The free will to dissolve the marital contract nullifies any further compact with the relationship. The State’s first and foremost responsibility is in establishing Laws that sustain an amiable society, a peaceful separation equally within the Law, and certainly in respect of Constitutional liberties.

JUNE CLARK writes:

MY HUSBAND IS 90 YEARS OLD AND HAS BEEN PAYING ALIMONY FOR OVER 37 YEARS. I THINK ALIMONY SHOULD BE CUT OFF FOR FOLKS THAT ARE RETIRED AND ALSO CONSIDER FACTORS SUCH AS HEALTH. IT IS SORT OF A LIFETIME OF LOTTERY WITH NO END IN SIGHT.ALSO WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT A LOT OF THESE FOLKS ARE VETERANS. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT THOSE THAT HAVE SOUGHT TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY.